PASSION OF THE CHRIST /OT
Luk
Here's an interesting comment from one film critic about
Mel Gibson's movie:
"My main objection to "The Passion" is that Gibson
has used the tools at his disposal to disguise sadism
as piety."
that article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/col/story/168941p-147561c.html
This comment more or less echoes my own reaction to what
I've heard so far about the movie. Gibson apparently enjoys
making movies about brutality and suffering. It would appear
that he is about to make a killing on "The Passion", which
features an excessive amount of brutality and suffering.
The fact that violent films are becoming more common
worries me. Producers are apparently aware that pain
sells. This can't be a good thing.
Comments?
Luk
Wild Monkshood
Luk wrote:
How could a film that hopes to realistically illustrate a
degradation/crucifixion hope to avoid showing sadism and violence? My
question is why modern filmmakers think that everything has to be
realistic, Technicolor effects, and in-you-face. Whatever happened to
subtlety, dynamic tension, and plot movement through dialogue and
foreshadowing. Why must we be shown every gut-wrenching detail. What
happened to imagination and figuring it out?
Wild Monkshood
>
>
> Luk
Gordon Lee
> Luk wrote:
>
> > Here's an interesting comment from one film critic
> > about Mel Gibson's movie:
> >
> > "My main objection to "The Passion" is that Gibson
> > has used the tools at his disposal to disguise sadism
> > as piety."
> >
> > that article:
> > http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/col/story/168941p-147561c.html
> >
> > This comment more or less echoes my own reaction
> > to what I've heard so far about the movie. Gibson
> > apparently enjoys making movies about brutality and
> > suffering. It would appear that he is about to make a
> > killing on "The Passion", which features an excessive
> > amount of brutality and suffering.
> >
> > The fact that violent films are becoming more common
> > worries me. Producers are apparently aware that pain
> > sells. This can't be a good thing.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> >
> How could a film that hopes to realistically illustrate a
> degradation/crucifixion hope to avoid showing sadism and
> violence? My question is why modern filmmakers think that
> everything has to be realistic, Technicolor effects, and in-
> you-face. Whatever happened to subtlety, dynamic tension,
> and plot movement through dialogue and foreshadowing.
> Why must we be shown every gut-wrenching detail. What
> happened to imagination and figuring it out?
>
> Wild Monkshood
>
.
Talkie Moving Picture Shows, stating the obvious, is a visual media. It
provides less strain on the public to see and hear action and dialog. It
just another step higher than the Silent Moving Picture Shows which helped
show the action portrayed on the screen to the viewers. Moving Picture
Shows, by popular acceptance, outdistance the audio media of radio shows
where it takes a whole lot less imagination for the public to hear dialog
and sounds but some imagination the action. A good book, strains the
imagination to those without the ability to employ their brain.
.
It comes down to providing entertainment to the least-common denominator.
Nose-pickers watching the film "From Here to Eternity" only saw a wet kiss.
Those that read the book knew it was more than waves slamming against the
bitc ... beach.
.
Graphic displays of blood and gore on the movie screen is liken to driving
by a horrible roadside automobile accident. Most of us already know how
horrible the sight of mangled bodies will look, but very few of us *will
not* rubberneck. Gratuitous displays of viscera in films are for the
rubber-necking nose-pickers. But this effect was exactly what Tom Hanks was
aiming with the D-Day scene in "Saving Private Ryan". A shock of reality
caused by war. Hitchcock, on the other hand, purposely did not show
penetration of the butch knife in the shower scene in "Psycho". Why?
Because our imagination of what happened to the poor girl was much better,
even for the dimmest of us, than the decapitation described in the book.
[aside: in the book, Norman Bates was a short, fat fellow -- lanky Anthony
Perkins inspired a much more visual creepy image, right?].
.
The "Passion of the Christ", from what I've heard, is nothing more than the
combination of the four books (Matt, Mark, Luke & Johnny) of the New
Testament. A compelling story. Possibly the reason for the Bible being the
number one best seller? The story line follows the Stations of the Cross,
found in all Catholic Churches. I'm sure Gel Mibson is employing the same
technique as Hanks -- showing the least-common denominator that reality
sucks. [Personally, I'm waiting to see the explicit Gel Mibson film of the
Koran, especially that part about the 72 virgins and a martyr.]
.
As for the Robot-Cops, Die Hards and Elm Street genre films, it's all a
matter of one-up-man-ship. It's who can cash in on reaping the most bucks
from reading-deficient nose-pickers. Almost like aspiring posters in
at-c -- who can draw the most attention with the vilest posts. ;^)
.
Honestly, no actual heads were lost in the typing of the above post.
.
Respectfully,
Gordon Lee
Great Fritain Royal Memorabilia & Clean Hankie Emporium
Notice how Torah & Koran are spelled. The two religions differ not one bit
in the middle ... only at the fringes.
nan
Dear Luk,
Is it possible that brutal Roman crucifixion cannot be depicted other
than violent and painful? Considering the historical fact the some
cultures executed persons by stoning to death and that method causes a
bit of prolonged suffering too, how should it be depicted in a
documentary or in a fictional drama? I say if the historical truth
and fact of suffering by violent means is a matter of the agony of
spewed blood, guts and tissue, so be it. How else will we know to
despise the means?
I'd rather become nauseated by the truth than feel better by a lie.
If we had been spared the explicit gruesome reality of the Nazi
concentration camps, would we be now so resolute against the horrors
of genocide?
Who "disguised sadism as piety?" Whose sadism? What piety?
Regards, from Nan
P.S. What a better drivers' ed. program for teenagers than taking them
to accident sites and the morgues? Real life lessons with which to
caution them! If you want people to respect life more, then show them
the wreck and stench of death, and the unrestrained sorrow of victims'
survivors.
Sarah Monroe
didn't intend for a crucification to be bloodless and pretty. Supposedly Jesus
went thru that for all the sins of the worlds. Ought to give you a new
appreciation of what it was all about.
'Passion' leaves viewers stunned
By JOHN BLAKE Cox News Service
ATLANTA -- The dazed people walking out of the Lefont Plaza Theatre in Atlanta
on Wednesday looked as if they had just endured their own Passion — tears
flowed and their shoulders slumped as they left the theater.
They were among the tens of thousands of people who visited theaters on Ash
Wednesday for the nationwide release of actor Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the
Christ."
"It was horrible. It was painful," said Patti Koester of Wadsworth, Ohio. "You
can read, 'Jesus was scourged,' and I've heard it for years. But until you
really see it, then it goes from the head to the heart."
Kirial Gamboa left the movie weeping. "I went through a box of Kleenex," said
the Coweta County, Ga., resident.
"The Passion," which is playing in more than 3,000 theaters, was directed,
produced and co-written by Gibson. It focuses not on Jesus' life but on his
torture and crucifixion.
The R-rated film has aroused intense interest because of its graphic depiction
of Jesus' death and what some critics call its insensitive portrayal of Jewish
religious leaders of the time.
But moviegoers interviewed after Wednesday's opening saw no anti-Semitism. Some
said the movie simply reflects the belief that Jewish leaders instigated Jesus'
death.
"If that's the way it was, why would you change it?" Koester asked.
Many moviegoers, some with the sign of the cross smudged in ashes on their
foreheads to mark Ash Wednesday, said they could hear others weeping during the
showing. After it ended, some viewers simply remained in their seats, too
stunned to move.
The Regal Hollywood 24 in DeKalb County, Ga., showed "The Passion" on six
screens, and seven of the Wednesday-night shows were sold out in advance. Long
lines of moviegoers snaked through the lobby.
"I hope it saves the morality in our country," said Alix Jones, a film major at
Georgia State University. "It's the first mainstream movie that really deals
with Christianity in a long time."
Maria Paris, a home contractor from Tucker, Ga., called it "life-changing. I
don't think I can read Scripture again and feel the same way."
Not everyone came away with a positive reaction.
"It was really gory and obscene," said Margaret Bragg, 17, a high school
senior. "It was so nasty."
Her friend J.D. Koth, 17, said he had expected to learn something new about
Jesus but "didn't get anything like that."
In Gwinnett County, Ga., the Regal Mall of Georgia 20 showed "The Passion" 16
times Wednesday.
Tammy Whitley of Sugar Hill, Ga., said, "You go in with expectations, but when
you're watching, the emotions are overwhelming."
In Kansas City, Mo., a woman collapsed Wednesday during a screening and later
died at a hospital, The Associated Press reported. A spokeswoman for Via
Christi Regional Medical Center confirmed the death but declined to release her
name or the cause of death.
Several people attending the showing at the LeFont Plaza said they were moved
by it.
"When they banged the nail in Jesus' hand, that really did it for me," said
Maria Frank of Kennesaw, Ga. "It tells the truth. We were really drained."
"It presented an unsanitized version of what Jesus sacrificed," said M.C.
Sullivan, a visitor from Boston. "It's exhausting because we never pause to
ponder the enormity of that sacrifice."
The film continues to draw criticism from the Anti-Defamation League.
"The final version . . . repeats all of the stereotypes and images surrounding
the death of Jesus that have generated anti-Semitism for 2,000 years," said
Abraham Foxman, the ADL's national director
Staff writers Phil Kloer and Don Fernandez contributed to this article.
Gms
"Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never
forgotten this."
Glek
news:B3r0c.11364$C65....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
<snip>But this effect was exactly what
> Tom Hanks was aiming with the D-Day scene in "Saving Private Ryan". A
> shock of reality caused by war.
Tom Hanks was the star of "Saving Private Ryan", but the director, Steven
Spielberg, was the one who decided the film's content. Spielberg was
responsible for the visceral scenes (no pun intended) that took place during
D-Day.
<snip>
As for the Robot-Cops, Die Hards and Elm Street genre films, it's all a
> matter of one-up-man-ship. It's who can cash in on reaping the most
> bucks from reading-deficient nose-pickers. Almost like aspiring posters
> in at-c -- who can draw the most attention with the vilest posts. ;^)
I have been known to pick my nose on occassion, and I do love high intensity
violent horror films and action films, but I am certainly am not reading-
deficient. I have read a wide range of books, from modern science fiction to
Greek tragedy, from biographies of celebrities to books on science. I own
over 5 thousand books and I have read about a third of them. Right now I am
reading "The One Tree" by Stephen Donaldson, which I will follow with the
final Thomas Covenant book, "White Gold Wielder", and rereading Tolkien's
Ring trilogy, having seen the movies. Soon I plan to read Michael
Cunningham's "The Hours" before I watch the movie.
I also enjoy other types of movies as well. If anyone is interested in a very
good movie with a religious theme and no bloodshed, I recommend "End of the
Affair", which I saw recently.
Those on the religious right who complain about the violence in today's films
will have a more difficult time defending their position because of the
religious right's embrace of "The Passion". From what I've heard of it, it
sounds like a Christian horror movie. My oldest sister, a church secretary,
who did see it, was supposed to have bought advance tickets for me and
another sister for next weekend. If she did, I will see it next weekend. I
think she hopes the film will move my pagan soul, but I fear she will be
disappointed. And in about a month's time, I think, I will see the remake of
"Dawn of the Dead". I won't be picking my nose unless the movie is boring.
goldenm...@yahoo.com
Gordon Lee
> My, my, you-all want a sanitized version of the crucification?
> The Romans didn't intend for a crucification to be bloodless
> and pretty. Supposedly Jesus went thru that for all the sins
> of the worlds. Ought to give you a new appreciation of what
> it was all about.
>
>
> 'Passion' leaves viewers stunned
> By JOHN BLAKE Cox News Service
>
>
> ATLANTA -- The dazed people ... <snip> ... contributed to
> this article.
>
> Gms
>
> "Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats
> have never forgotten this."
>
Greetings Ms. Moore.
.
No, I do not want a sanitized version of the crucification. I, personally,
would like to have all appreciate what it was all about.
.
Respectfully,
Great Fritain Royal Memorabilia & He Wept Buckets Emporium
What if Michael Crichton writes a book that is completely unfilmable?
Gordon Lee
> "Gordon Lee" wrote:
Greetings Glek.
.
> > <snip>But this effect was exactly what Tom Hanks was
> > aiming with the D-Day scene in "Saving Private Ryan". A
> > shock of reality caused by war.
>
> Tom Hanks was the star of "Saving Private Ryan", but the
> director, Steven Spielberg, was the one who decided the film's
> content. Spielberg was responsible for the visceral scenes (no
> pun intended) that took place during D-Day.
> <snip>
.
Doh! You are correct and I got caught picking my nose.
.
>
> > As for the Robot-Cops, Die Hards and Elm Street genre films,
> > it's all amatter of one-up-man-ship. It's who can cash in on
> > reaping the most bucks from reading-deficient nose-pickers.
> > Almost like aspiring posters in at-c -- who can draw the most
> > attention with the vilest posts. ;^)
>
> I have been known to pick my nose on occassion, and I do
> love high intensity violent horror films and action films, but I
> am certainly am not reading-deficient. I have read a wide range
> of books, from modern science fiction to Greek tragedy, from
> biographies of celebrities to books on science. I own over 5
> thousand books and I have read about a third of them. Right
> now I am reading "The One Tree" by Stephen Donaldson, which
> I will follow with the final Thomas Covenant book, "White Gold
> Wielder", and rereading Tolkien's Ring trilogy, having seen the
> movies. Soon I plan to read Michael Cunningham's "The Hours"
> before I watch the movie. I also enjoy other types of movies as
> well. If anyone is interested in a very good movie with a religious
> theme and no bloodshed, I recommend "End of the Affair", which
> I saw recently. Those on the religious right who complain about
> the violence in today's films will have a more difficult time
> defending their position because of the religious right's embrace of
> "The Passion". From what I've heard of it, it sounds like a Christian
> horror movie. My oldest sister, a church secretary, who did see it,
> was supposed to have bought advance tickets for me and another
> sister for next weekend. If she did, I will see it next weekend. I
> think she hopes the film will move my pagan soul, but I fear she
> will be disappointed. And in about a month's time, I think, I will
> see the remake of "Dawn of the Dead". I won't be picking my
> nose unless the movie is boring.
> .
Sorry, Glek. I did not mean to infer that all of us nose-pickers are
reading-deficient. I too have a collection of books and I've read both of
them. (The Spiderman comic is my favorite.)
.
My son-in-law also saw the Passion of the Christ. He is a Federal LE
Officer plus EMT on Eagle One and EagleTwo. He's not very religious, but he
is constantly talking about this film. He stated that he has rarely seen
anyone take such a beating (as did Christ in the movie) and still live.
.
Unfortunately, I seldom go to movie theaters. If a movie is good enough, it
will eventually be shown on tv and I can watch the violent bang'em ups, car
chases, gratuitous sex scenes, and bleeped language at home where the
popcorn and soda does not cost an damned arm and leg.
.
Steven Spielberg did Saving Private Ryan, Steven Spielberg did Saving
Private Ryan, Steven Spielberg did Saving Private Ryan and not Tom Hanks. (I
gotta keep telling myself over and over.)
.
Respectfully,
Gordon Lee
Great Fritain Royal Memorabilia & Let's All Go to the Lobby Emporium
Bambo: film about a young buck out for revenge against the hunters that
killed his mother.
CBZ
"Sarah Monroe" <gmsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040229160050...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> My, my, you-all want a sanitized version of the crucification? The Romans
> didn't intend for a crucification to be bloodless and pretty. Supposedly
Jesus
> went thru that for all the sins of the worlds. Ought to give you a new
> appreciation of what it was all about.
>
>
> 'Passion' leaves viewers stunned
> By JOHN BLAKE Cox News Service
>
>
I saw it today- I feel the it needed to be as graphic as it was. It is a
very powerful movie and you do walk out feeling dazed and drained. I
recommend it.
Luk
> How could a film that hopes to realistically illustrate a
> degradation/crucifixion hope to avoid showing sadism and violence?
Well I guess the question is, what does the film "hope" to do?
Does it simply hope to be realistic and if so, why? Is it
like realistic art, where you sort of wonder why the artist
didn't just take a photograph? Does the film hope to
discourage cruelty? Does it hope to uplift? Does it hope to
educate? Does it hope to sell tickets? I'm just not sure.
> My
> question is why modern filmmakers think that everything has to be
> realistic, Technicolor effects, and in-you-face. Whatever happened to
> subtlety, dynamic tension, and plot movement through dialogue and
> foreshadowing. Why must we be shown every gut-wrenching detail. What
> happened to imagination and figuring it out?
Yes, I agree with that.
I rather doubt I'll get around to watching the film. Watching
intense pain doesn't entertain me. I'd probably enjoy seeing a
film on the crucifixion that tells me things I didn't know and
stimulates me to get out the books. If The Passion does that
I'm not sure it's worth sitting through the violence.
Pain and violence are a significant part of the real world.
I'm just not sure why they're considered to be entertaining.
Luk
nan
For sensitive minds who watch Freddy Krugger's exploits and other
"creative" violence, I suggest "foreshadowing" the "gut-wrenching"
facts of real atrocity is humanely disinformative. (Read the foregoing
with sarcasim, please.)
Regards, from Nan
> >
> > Luk
goldenm...@yahoo.com
Foolishness of Our Faith.
Christians worship a God who revealed
Himself in suffering and weakness - pure
foolishness to a power-hungry world, but
a powerful message of love to all who believe.
The cross represents the POWER of
GOD to save a lost and dying world.
GM <I am eternally grateful to Jesus for His
sacrifice at the cross, the judgment of sin at
Calvary, the public humiliation of Satan those three
days Jesus spent in hell, and subsequent resurrection.
If Christianity had no other message, it is Christ
crucified, and resurrected. It is Christ's victory over
death, hell, and the grave.>
nanl...@hotmail.com (nan) wrote
> Dear Luk,
> Is it possible that brutal Roman crucifixion cannot be depicted other
> than violent and painful? Considering the historical fact the some
> cultures executed persons by stoning to death and that method causes a
> bit of prolonged suffering too, how should it be depicted in a
> documentary or in a fictional drama? I say if the historical truth
> and fact of suffering by violent means is a matter of the agony of
> spewed blood, guts and tissue, so be it. How else will we know to
> despise the means?
>
> I'd rather become nauseated by the truth than feel better by a lie.
> If we had been spared the explicit gruesome reality of the Nazi
> concentration camps, would we be now so resolute against the horrors
> of genocide?
Aside:
My objections to major media coverage of 9/11: It was sanitized.
We needed to hear the screams and thuds of all the people who jumped
to avoid being cooked alive. This country, consequently, has fallen
asleep again to the real threat of terrorism.
Luk
> Is it possible that brutal Roman crucifixion cannot be depicted other
> than violent and painful?
The Bible did it.
But I think it's a matter of how graphic
one wants to be, how many details will be
shown and for how long.
> Considering the historical fact the some
> cultures executed persons by stoning to death and that method causes a
> bit of prolonged suffering too, how should it be depicted in a
> documentary or in a fictional drama? I say if the historical truth
> and fact of suffering by violent means is a matter of the agony of
> spewed blood, guts and tissue, so be it. How else will we know to
> despise the means?
My personal reaction is that real life tells me as much and
more than I want to know about pain and suffering. It's
already hard to keep one's mind off of what people
actually live through.
> I'd rather become nauseated by the truth than feel better by a lie.
> If we had been spared the explicit gruesome reality of the Nazi
> concentration camps, would we be now so resolute against the horrors
> of genocide?
Well of course there are many ways to tell a story. If
the story teller wants to make sure people "get it",
then something graphic and realistic a way to do that.
But is the motivation behind all the realism always a
good one? And does depicting graphic violence
encourage violent people to act out? We know
sometimes it does.
> Who "disguised sadism as piety?" Whose sadism?
The charge is that Gibson does when he emphasizes his
personal religion in discussing his film. The sadism, of
course is that of the people who crucified Christ and mocked
him.
> What a better drivers' ed. program for teenagers than taking them
> to accident sites and the morgues? Real life lessons with which to
> caution them! If you want people to respect life more, then show them
> the wreck and stench of death, and the unrestrained sorrow of victims'
> survivors.
Absolutely. Most teenagers have no concept of mortality
or suffering.
Luk
Luk
> Aside:
> My objections to major media coverage of 9/11: It was sanitized.
> We needed to hear the screams and thuds of all the people who jumped
> to avoid being cooked alive. This country, consequently, has fallen
> asleep again to the real threat of terrorism.
I can't imagine showing on television the up-close details
of 9/11. But it is true that the public forgets about danger
too quickly and too easily.
Luk
goldenm...@yahoo.com
It was shown internationally and
it created support from some other
countries.
GM
web2...@verizon.net
"nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f49fa86.04022...@posting.google.com...
> Is it possible that brutal Roman crucifixion cannot be depicted other
> than violent and painful? Considering the historical fact the some
> cultures executed persons by stoning to death and that method causes a
> bit of prolonged suffering too, how should it be depicted in a
> documentary or in a fictional drama? I say if the historical truth
> and fact of suffering by violent means is a matter of the agony of
> spewed blood, guts and tissue, so be it. How else will we know to
> despise the means?
No they could have done it differently. Gibson could have recognized that
homosexuality was common amongst the Roman troops. He could have filmed it
as a GAY RIGHTS flick and has 200 minutes of non stop fellatio to PLEASE the
left wingnuts! Maybe even includes a couple Gerbil launchings to add some
spice to it!
web2...@verizon.net
<goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b1e2b6b.04030...@posting.google.com...
> > I can't imagine showing on television the up-close details
> > of 9/11. But it is true that the public forgets about danger
> > too quickly and too easily.
>
> It was shown internationally and
> it created support from some other
> countries.
Not in France. Every time they showed another person leaping our of the WTC
the crowds in France CHEERED!
web2...@verizon.net
"Gordon Lee" <gordon...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:K3u0c.18438$6K....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> My son-in-law also saw the Passion of the Christ. He is a Federal LE
> Officer plus EMT on Eagle One and EagleTwo. He's not very religious, but
he
> is constantly talking about this film. He stated that he has rarely seen
> anyone take such a beating (as did Christ in the movie) and still live.
The funny thing is that the film UNDERplayed the violence on Christ. A
historical fact is that on average the people crucified lived for several
days after being hoisted up on the crosses. Christ has been so badly beaten
and tortured that he lived a mere 6 hours.
web2...@verizon.net
> Wild Monkshood wrote:
>
> > How could a film that hopes to realistically illustrate a
> > degradation/crucifixion hope to avoid showing sadism and violence?
> Well I guess the question is, what does the film "hope" to do?
> Does it simply hope to be realistic and if so, why? Is it
> like realistic art, where you sort of wonder why the artist
> didn't just take a photograph? Does the film hope to
> discourage cruelty? Does it hope to uplift? Does it hope to
> educate? Does it hope to sell tickets? I'm just not sure.
Gibson has explained his purpose. He has drifted in an out and back in
to conservarive Catholicism. He claims his purpose was to tell the story of
the passion of Christ as accurate and complete as he could as HE understands
it. He hoped to tell a story.
> > My
> > question is why modern filmmakers think that everything has to be
> > realistic, Technicolor effects, and in-you-face. Whatever happened to
> > subtlety, dynamic tension, and plot movement through dialogue and
> > foreshadowing. Why must we be shown every gut-wrenching detail. What
> > happened to imagination and figuring it out?
> Yes, I agree with that.
> I rather doubt I'll get around to watching the film. Watching
> intense pain doesn't entertain me. I'd probably enjoy seeing a
> film on the crucifixion that tells me things I didn't know and
> stimulates me to get out the books. If The Passion does that
> I'm not sure it's worth sitting through the violence.
>
> Pain and violence are a significant part of the real world.
> I'm just not sure why they're considered to be entertaining.
I don't think "entertainment" was the primary purpose of Gibson's work. Just
as 99% of what Hollywood does isn't really "entertainment' but a conveyance
for POLITICAL messages! If the WAY WAY WAY WAY LEFT can do it, why not
Gibson?
web2...@verizon.net
"Cleopatra" <Leftists_...@linkedto.privaserv.com> wrote in message
news:254656d4.04022...@posting.google.com...
> Luk, certainly movies have become increasing violent, and most of it
> is of a wholly gratuitous nature. But don't you find it just a bit odd
> that as soon as a movie comes along depicting the life of Christ, and
> whose historical death was terribly violent, out come the critics
> decrying violent films. Whence come these newly-formed sensibilities
> about violence in movies, especially in view of the fact that most of
> these same critics have in the past hailed as great artistic
> achievements films far more violent than this one? Moreover, films
> where the violence wasn't essential to the theme, the story being
> told.
It is AMAZING to me that the people raising the MOST hell about the violence
of the Gibson film have been associated with films like the Dawn of the
Dead,
Alien, Saving Private Ryan and others, and who have defended the MOST
EXTREME VIOLENT films as "THE GREATEST WORKS OF ART" known to man! Yet they
wish that the Gibson film was burned.
AMAZING!
Luk
> > worries me. Producers are apparently aware that pain
> > sells. This can't be a good thing.
Cleopatra wrote:
> don't you find it just a bit odd
> that as soon as a movie comes along depicting the life of Christ, and
> whose historical death was terribly violent, out come the critics
> decrying violent films. Whence come these newly-formed sensibilities
> about violence in movies, especially in view of the fact that most of
> these same critics have in the past hailed as great artistic
> achievements films far more violent than this one? Moreover, films
> where the violence wasn't essential to the theme, the story being
> told.
Undoubtedly you're correct about a good many of the
critics. If graphic depictions of the crucifixion are
undesirable, graphic depictions of the holocaust and
similar subjects are as well.
My own questions about the film don't relate to the religious
content. It worries me that graphic violence and suffering are
popular entertainment lately. Both apparently sell a lot of
tickets. Perhaps sex has been "done to death" and pain
is taking its place.
But as entertainment, both are worrisome when we see
school kids shooting each other at school and/or engaging
in indiscriminate sexual activity at increasingly early ages -
with troublesome consequences.
Gibson did a perfect job of choosing and directing a
film destined to get everyone's juices flowing.
In one direction or another.
Luk
Luk
> It is AMAZING to me that the people raising the MOST hell about the violence
> of the Gibson film have been associated with films like the Dawn of the
> Dead,
> Alien, Saving Private Ryan and others, and who have defended the MOST
> EXTREME VIOLENT films as "THE GREATEST WORKS OF ART" known to man! Yet they
> wish that the Gibson film was burned.
I have a question. How do you know who is raising
the most objection about violence in Gibson's film?
How have you identified them?
Luk
Luk
> > it created support from some other
> > countries.
"k...@verizon.net" wrote:
> Not in France. Every time they showed another person leaping our of the WTC
> the crowds in France CHEERED!
Interestingly The Passion is not being shown in
France. Drudge has a story on it today. Apparently
the subject of anti-Semitism is especially touchy
there.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-passion29.html
"PARIS -- French cinema chains are refusing to
distribute or screen Mel Gibson's controversial
film "The Passion of the Christ" because of
fears it will spark a new outbreak of anti-Semitism."
Luk
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
>The fact that violent films are becoming more common
>worries me. Producers are apparently aware that pain
>sells. This can't be a good thing.
>
>Comments?
>
>Luk
Life can be violent. Back in the day it was more so for Jesus. What
sells is reality. People seem to feel this is an accurate depiction
of what Christ went through.
Schindlers List was very violent and gory, according to two camp
survivors I know, it was also accurate in it's depiction of life in a
concentration camp to a large degree.
I know what you mean about violence selling, I just don't agree that
this is the movie to illustrate that.
Mel Gibson is a good guy. I just can't see why people need to get on
him about this movie.
--
Like a game of pick up stick played by fucking lunatics
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
And in about a month's time, I think, I will see the remake of
>"Dawn of the Dead". I won't be picking my nose unless the movie is
boring.
And sometimes a nose just needs to be picked.
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
>Wild Monkshood wrote:
>
>> How could a film that hopes to realistically illustrate a
>> degradation/crucifixion hope to avoid showing sadism and violence?
>
>Well I guess the question is, what does the film "hope" to do?
>Does it simply hope to be realistic and if so, why? Is it
>like realistic art, where you sort of wonder why the artist
>didn't just take a photograph? Does the film hope to
>discourage cruelty? Does it hope to uplift? Does it hope to
>educate? Does it hope to sell tickets? I'm just not sure.
I don't think the FILM hopes to do anything, but it would be
interesting to know What Mel hopes it will do other then big dollars
at the box office.
Glek
news:254656d4.04030...@posting.google.com:
> Glek <gle...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns949EAAA28...@207.69.154.204>...
>
> (snip)
>
>> Those on the religious right who complain about the violence in today's
>> films will have a more difficult time defending their position because
>> of the religious right's embrace of "The Passion".
>
> For someone who has read as much as you claim, certainly it doesn't
> seem to have helped your ability to make important distinctions when
> thinking things through. There is an enormous difference, sir, in
> films which depict gratuitous sex and violence, especially where these
> films have absolutely no historical basis, and films depicting
> historical events where the violence and depravity is a core element
> of the story being told. Schindler's List was one such film and
> Gibson's rendering of the crucifixion is another. Man has not invented
> a more horrible way to die than Roman crucifixions, not before or
> since. What in hell do you think this movie is about? Should Gibson
> have cleaned it up for the leftists, just like they want abortion
> cleaned up and sanitized so people don't have a clear idea of just
> what's being done? It would appear the only violence liberals shy away
> from is that violence which in fact actually occurs.
>
> Anyway, for you, or anyone, to make such a foolish comparison in the
> context of Christians decrying wholly gratuitous sex and violence in
> films as a matter of general principle boggles the mind. This isn't
> even apples and oranges, but rather more like apples and Boeing 707s.
> (Cleopatra)
>
Many succussful films have been made protraying crucifixion without showing
the violence involved, just as successful films have been made about the
Holocaust and about D-Day. I don't think however that "The Passion of the
Christ", "Schindler's List" or "Saving Private Ryan" should have cut back on
the gore. The greater realism of gore helped make the latter two (haven't
seen "Passion" so I can't comment on it) great, relevant films, However, when
any right winger (as opposed to "Christian", many Christians being liberal
BTW) criticises violence in a film they will have to explain how extreme
violence in "Passion" is gratuitous while extreme violence in another film,
say an action film or a horror film, isn't. Is it OK to show blood spurting
out of a neck whose head has been chopped off by Henry VIII's executioner,
but not OK to show the same scene if the head is bitten off by a giant bug in
a science fiction horror film? If so, why is the one OK, and the other not
OK? Because one is based on real events and the other isn't?
The terms "gratuitous violence" and "gratuitous sex" were invented by both
right-wingers and left-wingers who hoped to regulate the content of films,
movies, music, video games, etc. They did not like the new license to vividly
employ violence and sex that emerged during the '70's and they have been
trying and failing to curtail this new freedom ever since. I don't believe
there is any such animal as gratuitous sex or violence. If the sex or the
violence meshes with the story, whether wholly fictional or based on fact,
then it does not matter how explicit the material: it is not gratuitous. If
the sex or violence doesn't mesh with the story, it is not because the sex or
the violence is gratuitous, it is because poor choices were made by a
mediocre director. Because people of whatever political stripe consider it to
be gratuitous does not make it so.
The recent dust-up that began over Janet Jackson's boob is another effort to
control the media. In time this too will pass and things will go back to what
they were, except with people more extreme than Howard Stern and Lovesponge
whoever broadcasting with nary a comment until the next incident resurrects
defining deviancy down murmurs by busybodies and media nannies in the halls
of Congress. (I cannot stand Howard Stern BTW. YOu couldn't pay me enough to
money to listen or watch his shows, but I do recognize that there are people
who love him, and they certainly have a right to their entertainment, just as
I have a right to mine and you to yours.)
Luk
> Life can be violent. Back in the day it was more so for Jesus. What
> sells is reality. People seem to feel this is an accurate depiction
> of what Christ went through.
Life can be violent and often is. But I have to ask why
the worst of it is reproduced for entertainment. What
is the point and purpose? Does accurate representation
equate to greatness in art? It never has.
> Schindlers List was very violent and gory, according to two camp
> survivors I know, it was also accurate in it's depiction of life in a
> concentration camp to a large degree.
But why does the fact that Schindler's List was violent argue
in favor of graphic violence as a form of entertainment?
> I know what you mean about violence selling, I just don't agree that
> this is the movie to illustrate that.
Why not? Because the plot is the central part of a specific
religion? You can look at that in various ways. You
can say that the violence is OK in this film because it's a
religious theme. (Or even because it was an historic
event.) Or you can argue that someone who likes
to depict violence used this familiar, religious theme
as an excuse.
> Mel Gibson is a good guy. I just can't see why people
> need to get on him about this movie.
Mel Gibson is an excellent actor whom I have thoroughly
enjoyed in a number of movies. He may be a good guy
as well. But that's somewhat irrelevant to my point, which
is that the recent increase of violence in films can
stimulate more violence in real life. It worries me that
there seems to be a trend toward especially graphic
depiction of violence and pain in films. Does this reflect
the fact that audiences are beginning to favor it? What
could that mean?
Luk
Alison MacIntyre
> nanl...@hotmail.com (nan) wrote in message news:<8f49fa86.04022...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Dear Luk,
> > Is it possible that brutal Roman crucifixion cannot be depicted other
> > than violent and painful? Considering the historical fact the some
> > cultures executed persons by stoning to death and that method causes a
> > bit of prolonged suffering too, how should it be depicted in a
> > documentary or in a fictional drama? I say if the historical truth
> > and fact of suffering by violent means is a matter of the agony of
> > spewed blood, guts and tissue, so be it. How else will we know to
> > despise the means?
> >
> > If we had been spared the explicit gruesome reality of the Nazi
> > concentration camps, would we be now so resolute against the horrors
> > of genocide?
> >
> >
> > Regards, from Nan
> >
> > P.S. What a better drivers' ed. program for teenagers than taking them
> > to accident sites and the morgues? Real life lessons with which to
> > caution them! If you want people to respect life more, then show them
> > the wreck and stench of death, and the unrestrained sorrow of victims'
> > survivors.
>
> of this sanctimonious howling about the violence in this movie comes
> from leftist Jews who never tire of reminding us of the holocaust.
> They go out of their way to show us the horror of what happened here,
> and in all its gory detail, photo by photo. And those who recoil in
> shock at these images are in effect told it's for their own good, so
> that it will never happen again. I swear, this monumental hypocrisy
> and duplicity wears me down, Nan. They act like everyone is a fool and
> can't put two and two together, especially these film critics whose
> unfathomable hatred for all things Christian is as transparent as
> Saran Wrap on a hunk of coal. (Cleopatra)
I watched some _BRAVEHEART_ today and I think that it's safe to say
that violence is Mel's forte.
And based on the overall feedback from critics concerning the violence
in THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, I'm more inclined to believe that Mel,
much like William Friedkin (THE EXORCIST), is attempting to SHOCK his
audience into religious conformation, by projecting guilt upon his
audience.
DedNdogYrs
the crowds in France CHEERED!>
Is that true? If so, they're bigger assholes than I thought. (I wonder why
people from rude cultures also don't bathe.)
Dogs & children first.
DedNdogYrs
did with Reagan. They could have alleged that Jesus Christ was in fact of the
direct lineage of the Bush family and was secretly torturing little children
and throwing them into acid vats. Then, instead of merely crucifying him once,
they could have taken him down from the cross like about ten times and did it
all over again and
again until they were dragging a skeleton. Then at the end, they could show the
Romans, urged on by the psychotic, Hate Bush Israelites, crushing His remaining
bones to cinders with huge boulders or
something and pissing on the ashes shouting, "Where are the WMD's, Jesus
Bush!!" Of course, the critics would then be telling us the film could have
been more realistic and shown more violence, such as killing Jesus Bush FIFTY
times instead. (Cleopatra)>
Forgot to take your Thorazine again huh?
Dogs & children first.
Sarah Monroe
That is BS. The whole world sympathized and cried with us until Bush invaded
Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11.
Gms
"Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never
forgotten this.
http://gmspider.com/GGHome.htm
goldenm...@yahoo.com
The French lie. France hates God but loves
Hitler. France wouldn't run the Germans out of
its own streets. It took the blood of 20,000
US soldiers to free France from German invasion.
This movie has nothing to do with anti semitism.
Jesus layed down his life freely. He could have called
ten thousand angels to stop the Roman soldiers that took Him.
Rome considered Jesus a insurrectionist too dangerous
to live. He could feed 5000 from a boy's sack lunch,
raise the dead, and heal. Jesus could conquer the
world by force. Rome was uncomfortable with that.
GM
Ranger00089
>That is BS. The whole world sympathized and cried with us until Bush invaded
>Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11.
>
>
>
>Gms
>
Thats bs Sarah. People from the Islamic countries danced in the streets.
Muslims in the heavily muslim country of France danced and cheered. Iraq, btw,
supported terrorists from all over the world, including al quaida.To think
pathetic countries like France liked us until we invaded Iraq is silly.France
had been violating the UN bans on trade with Iraq for years.
Steve, SFC/US Army
Ranger00089
>This movie has nothing to do with anti semitism.
>
Correct.
>Jesus layed down his life freely. He could have called
>ten thousand angels to stop the Roman soldiers that took Him.
Correct again.
>Rome considered Jesus a insurrectionist too dangerous
>to live.
incorrect. Pilate and Herod did not feel he threatened them in any way. One
group of Jewish leaders wanted him dead. Other Jews wanted no part of his
treatment or crucifiction. He died because he was supposed to die, he chose to
die to cleanse our sins. To hate the Jews would be to hate God, because they
carried out His will.
Steve, SFC/US Army
web2...@verizon.net
If you listen carefully to Gibson, I don't think he did the film to be
"entertainment."
web2...@verizon.net
So far the main voices have been from Hollywood. They've been on the TV
Newstalk shows like Meet The Press. Some have been Jewish clergy.
But most of their objections weren't about the violence. Hollywood types
like Speilberg attacked it as too violent. Yes, from a strictly historical
perspective the actual violence was somewhat downplayed in Gibson's film.
The REAL problem with Gibson's film is that it makes a HEAVY Christian
message. And it comes from Gibson's conservative Catholic views. Anything
overtly Christian in America is going to be trashed.
web2...@verizon.net
> > > It was shown internationally and
> > > it created support from some other
> > > countries.
>
> "k...@verizon.net" wrote:
>
> > Not in France. Every time they showed another person leaping our of the
WTC
> > the crowds in France CHEERED!
>
> Interestingly The Passion is not being shown in
> France. Drudge has a story on it today. Apparently
> the subject of anti-Semitism is especially touchy
> there.
I was referring to the video footage of the collapse of the WTC not the
PASSION.
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-passion29.html
>
> "PARIS -- French cinema chains are refusing to
> distribute or screen Mel Gibson's controversial
> film "The Passion of the Christ" because of
> fears it will spark a new outbreak of anti-Semitism."
Not surprising from the French.The Frogs are UNIQUE in the world.
Let us remember they have some SINS in that respect to atone for. Remember
that the MAJORITY in France
SUPPORTED
Hitler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
web2...@verizon.net
<goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b1e2b6b.04030...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > "PARIS -- French cinema chains are refusing to
> > distribute or screen Mel Gibson's controversial
> > film "The Passion of the Christ" because of
> > fears it will spark a new outbreak of anti-Semitism."
> >
> > Luk
>
> The French lie. France hates God but loves
> Hitler. France wouldn't run the Germans out of
> its own streets. It took the blood of 20,000
> US soldiers to free France from German invasion.
> This movie has nothing to do with anti semitism.
>
Some French cried when the Nazi's marched into Paris. But the MAJORITY fully
supported the Nazis and actively collaborated with them,
the underground were mostly the French COMMUNISTS. France (and most of
Europe) was basically pretty much the same with factions and the two
significant ones being the Nazi sympathizers and the Communists. The French
were far from unique. The interesting part is that BOTH the French Nazis AND
the French Communists could agree on only ONE thing. To HATE Americans!
web2...@verizon.net
"Ranger00089" <range...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040302091540...@mb-m03.aol.com...
Jesus ran afoul of ONE group. The San Hedron, the Hebrew CLERGY, every bit
as nasty as today's MULLAH'S!
web2...@verizon.net
> ScorpionKing wrote:
>
> > Life can be violent. Back in the day it was more so for Jesus. What
> > sells is reality. People seem to feel this is an accurate depiction
> > of what Christ went through.
>
> Life can be violent and often is. But I have to ask why
> the worst of it is reproduced for entertainment. What
> is the point and purpose? Does accurate representation
> equate to greatness in art? It never has.
>
> > Schindlers List was very violent and gory, according to two camp
> > survivors I know, it was also accurate in it's depiction of life in a
> > concentration camp to a large degree.
>
> But why does the fact that Schindler's List was violent argue
> in favor of graphic violence as a form of entertainment?
Luk, the violence in Schindler's list NEEDED to be there. However, it,
like Passion, substantially DOWNPLAYED the real violence. For an example,
Schindler's list did not depict people being "skinned" alive and their skin
being used to make lampshades. Yet that was common in several of the "camps"
of the Nazi regieme. In Passion, as well, the actual violence against Jesus
was downplayed. Most victims of crucifixion lived for days, Christ on the
other hand died in a few hours because of the many injuries he siffered that
were NOT shown in the film. I think if the actual violence were shown, most
of the audience would have thrown up. Realism has some limits. In both
films, the audiences GOT THE POINT!
>> Mel Gibson is an excellent actor whom I have thoroughly
> enjoyed in a number of movies. He may be a good guy
> as well. But that's somewhat irrelevant to my point, which
> is that the recent increase of violence in films can
> stimulate more violence in real life. It worries me that
> there seems to be a trend toward especially graphic
> depiction of violence and pain in films. Does this reflect
> the fact that audiences are beginning to favor it? What
> could that mean?
Gibson's purpose in the film was NOT "entertainment."
web2...@verizon.net
"Cleopatra" <Leftists_...@linkedto.privaserv.com> wrote in message
news:254656d4.04030...@posting.google.com...
> > No they could have done it differently. Gibson could have recognized
that
> > homosexuality was common amongst the Roman troops. He could have filmed
it
> > as a GAY RIGHTS flick and has 200 minutes of non stop fellatio to PLEASE
the
> > left wingnuts! Maybe even includes a couple Gerbil launchings to add
some
> > spice to it!
>
> Or, better yet, they could have made a true *documentary*, sort of
> like they did with Reagan. They could have alleged that Jesus Christ
> was in fact of the direct lineage of the Bush family and was secretly
> torturing little children and throwing them into acid vats. Then,
> instead of merely crucifying him once, they could have taken him down
> from the cross like about ten times and did it all over again and
> again until they were dragging a skeleton. Then at the end, they could
> show the Romans, urged on by the psychotic, Hate Bush Israelites,
> crushing His remaining bones to cinders with huge boulders or
> something and pissing on the ashes shouting, "Where are the WMD's,
> Jesus Bush!!"
What left wing film on Christ would be complete without Jesus molesting
children?
web2...@verizon.net
>
> Many succussful films have been made protraying crucifixion without
showing
> the violence involved, just as successful films have been made about the
> Holocaust and about D-Day. I don't think however that "The Passion of the
> Christ", "Schindler's List" or "Saving Private Ryan" should have cut back
on
> the gore. The greater realism of gore helped make the latter two (haven't
> seen "Passion" so I can't comment on it) great, relevant films,
How does one determine the "success" of a film? Box office? Or the message
of the film being felt by the audience?
In the three cases you cite, Saving private Ryan, Schindler's List, and
Passion, the film makers had a DEEP message to
communicate to the audience. Powerful messages, the horror of war, the
atrocities of war, and religion. ALL of those
films were successful in the intent of their producers. In all 3 films the
audiences got the point!
web2...@verizon.net
"DedNdogYrs" <dednd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040302022347...@mb-m23.aol.com...
The women also don't shave their armpits!
web2...@verizon.net
"Sarah Monroe" <gmsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040302064549...@mb-m26.aol.com...
> ><Not in France. Every time they showed another person leaping our of the
WTC
> >the crowds in France CHEERED!>
> >
> >Is that true? If so, they're bigger assholes than I thought. (I wonder
why
> >people from rude cultures also don't bathe.)
>
invaded
> Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11.
HORSE SHIT Sarah! Some of the French sympathized. BUT read La Monde from
2001. The overwhelming opinion was that "America brought it on themselves
and DESERVED IT!"
web2...@verizon.net
"Ranger00089" <range...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> Sarah wrote;
>
> >That is BS. The whole world sympathized and cried with us until Bush
invaded
> >Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11.
> Thats bs Sarah. People from the Islamic countries danced in the streets.
> Muslims in the heavily muslim country of France danced and cheered. Iraq,
btw,
> supported terrorists from all over the world, including al quaida.To think
> pathetic countries like France liked us until we invaded Iraq is
silly.France
> had been violating the UN bans on trade with Iraq for years.
The celebration in Rumallah lasted 3 days of gunfire into the air. Same in
Aman, Tehran. But read the comments in German and French newspapers from the
people after 9-11. There was loads of "the Americans DESERVED IT!"
And before we buy into Sarah's political extremism, let's remember that Bush
had NOT invaded Iraq in August of 2001! As a matter of fact the universal
opinion about Bush on September 10th was that he was a "do nothing ONE TERM
President." Bush had done NOTHING to "CAUSE" 9-11 as Sarah suggests.
not_over_the_hill
>Luk <lukn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<40420983...@earthlink.net>...
>> Here's an interesting comment from one film critic about
>> Mel Gibson's movie:
>>
>> "My main objection to "The Passion" is that Gibson
>> has used the tools at his disposal to disguise sadism
>> as piety."
>>
>> that article:
>> http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/col/story/168941p-147561c.html
>>
>> This comment more or less echoes my own reaction to what
>> I've heard so far about the movie. Gibson apparently enjoys
>> making movies about brutality and suffering. It would appear
>> that he is about to make a killing on "The Passion", which
>> features an excessive amount of brutality and suffering.
>>
>> The fact that violent films are becoming more common
>> worries me. Producers are apparently aware that pain
>> sells. This can't be a good thing.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Luk
>
>Dear Luk,
>Is it possible that brutal Roman crucifixion cannot be depicted other
>than violent and painful? Considering the historical fact the some
>cultures executed persons by stoning to death and that method causes a
>bit of prolonged suffering too, how should it be depicted in a
>documentary or in a fictional drama? I say if the historical truth
>and fact of suffering by violent means is a matter of the agony of
>spewed blood, guts and tissue, so be it. How else will we know to
>despise the means?
>
>I'd rather become nauseated by the truth than feel better by a lie.
>If we had been spared the explicit gruesome reality of the Nazi
>concentration camps, would we be now so resolute against the horrors
>of genocide?
>
>Who "disguised sadism as piety?" Whose sadism? What piety?
>
>Regards, from Nan
>
>P.S. What a better drivers' ed. program for teenagers than taking them
>to accident sites and the morgues? Real life lessons with which to
>caution them! If you want people to respect life more, then show them
>the wreck and stench of death, and the unrestrained sorrow of victims'
>survivors.
Very well put
Alan Hope
It's not true, of course.
Americans have such a bug up their butts about the French. Could it be
because the rudest French peasant still manages to make the most
cosmopolitan American look and feel like a rube? Most nations know
you're a bunch of superstitious hick Jethroes, but they don't say it
to your face. The French make no secret of their disdain. And for this
you hate them.
Wouldn't it be more productive to, like, raise yourselves up, rather
than try to put them down? Read a few books; learn to play a musical
instrument; learn a foreign language; enough with the voodoo
mumbo-jumbo already. Give people a reason to look up to you, instead
of just insisting they do.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Gibson did a perfect job of choosing and directing a
>film destined to get everyone's juices flowing.
>In one direction or another.
Yes. Those people like Steve who are prostrating themselves as if he
were the new John the Baptist should bear in mind he'll be gleefully
rubbing his hands and fervently praying all the way to the bank.
And they claim he's being opposed by "Hollywood". What a bunch of
saps. This movie is Hollywood all the way. Blood goes in one end,
money comes out the other. Plus ca change.
--
AH
nan
> I will give you a summary of the
> Foolishness of Our Faith.
>
> Christians worship a God who revealed
> Himself in suffering and weakness - pure
> foolishness to a power-hungry world, but
> a powerful message of love to all who believe.
>
> The cross represents the POWER of
> GOD to save a lost and dying world.
>
> GM <I am eternally grateful to Jesus for His
> sacrifice at the cross, the judgment of sin at
> Calvary, the public humiliation of Satan those three
> days Jesus spent in hell, and subsequent resurrection.
> If Christianity had no other message, it is Christ
> crucified, and resurrected. It is Christ's victory over
> death, hell, and the grave.>
>
> nanl...@hotmail.com (nan) wrote
> > Is it possible that brutal Roman crucifixion cannot be depicted other
> > than violent and painful? Considering the historical fact the some
> > cultures executed persons by stoning to death and that method causes a
> > bit of prolonged suffering too, how should it be depicted in a
> > documentary or in a fictional drama? I say if the historical truth
> > and fact of suffering by violent means is a matter of the agony of
> > spewed blood, guts and tissue, so be it. How else will we know to
> > despise the means?
> >
> > I'd rather become nauseated by the truth than feel better by a lie.
> > If we had been spared the explicit gruesome reality of the Nazi
> > concentration camps, would we be now so resolute against the horrors
> > of genocide?
>
> My objections to major media coverage of 9/11: It was sanitized.
> We needed to hear the screams and thuds of all the people who jumped
> to avoid being cooked alive. This country, consequently, has fallen
> asleep again to the real threat of terrorism.
Well, it is the Absolute God-Media which regulates the reality and
controls explosure of events. *THEY* decide what we should see and
they tell us HOW we should feel about it too! It seems they do not
want us to react like humans!
Regards, from Nan
Alan Hope
>If you listen carefully to Gibson, I don't think he did the film to be
>"entertainment."
I think the word you're looking for is "stupidly".
If he wanted to get a message across, he could have put it out on PBS
and pocketed nothing. Opening in all those cinemas at once couldn't
possibly have anything to do with making pots and pots of dough, could
it?
Surely not.
--
AH
Sarah Monroe
>message. And it comes from Gibson's conservative Catholic views. Anything
>overtly Christian in America is going to be trashed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The REAL problem with Gibson's film is that it makes a HEAVY Christian
>message. And it comes from Gibson's conservative Catholic views. Anything
>overtly Christian in America is going to be trashed.
>
>
>
The only people in this ng that I have seen trash the movie are Luk and th 4
headed troll, now posting as Cleopatra. Are you saying those two are not
Christian?
Too violent? Oh yes, let's have a movie where they slapped him on the hand and
told him he was naughty.
They believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world but they don't want to
hear or see any beatings, blood or suffering. If they really believe that he
died for a reason, why aren't they screaming about what he went thru to take
their sins upon his shoulders?
Sarah Monroe
>Some French cried when the Nazi's marched into Paris. But the MAJORITY fully
>supported the Nazis and actively collaborated with them,
>the underground were mostly the French COMMUNISTS. France (and most of
>Europe) was basically pretty much the same with factions and the two
>significant ones being the Nazi sympathizers and the Communists. The French
>were far from unique. The interesting part is that BOTH the French Nazis AND
>the French Communists could agree on only ONE thing. To HATE Americans!
>
>
>
Pangborn's version of French history. Have you ever been there?
Sarah Monroe
Yes it was well put. Even I must agree with Nan on this one.
Alan Hope
>But why does the fact that Schindler's List was violent argue
>in favor of graphic violence as a form of entertainment?
In fact, by the standards of modern cinema, SL was hardly graphic at
all. What was shocking about the violence in that film was not its
graphic depiction of blood and entrails, but its casual, arbitrary and
routine character. People were gunned down on the spot without a
second thought. But we didn't actually see exploding skulls. The point
being made was not that Nazi bullets did a particularly good job of
destroying human brain-tissue, but that the Nazis didn't much care
what effect it had. An emblematic scene has Amon Goeth pull a man from
a line and attempt to blow his brains out for some minor slight. His
gun jams and he's unable to kill the man. So he lets him go.
That, and not any graphic depiction of murder, is illustrative of the
horror of the Nazis' reign of terror. Not that they killed millions,
but that they were really so indifferent to their victims that someone
like Oskar Schindler could finesse the cracks in their plan of
extermination and exploit their indifference to save many lives. The
shocking thing about Goeth is not his active cruelty, but his cynical
indifference. He's capable of murdering hundreds, thousands, and
collaborating in the deaths of millions -- but he really doesn't care
much either way.
That point aside, the thing that bothers me about screen violence is
that film-makers don't seem to realise that it's not actually a very
good way to get your point across, even when your point concerns
murder and mayhem. Martin Scorsese went to great lengths in GoodFellas
and in Casino to dwell on the lingering beauty of extreme violence
committed by mobsters, for all the world as if he had never seen White
Heat or Public Enemy, in which the same point is made to more telling
effect, with not a drop of blood to be seen. Cagney's character in
Public Enemy is, in one respect, like Amon Goeth: his murderous
violence is arbitrary, indifferent, disinterested, and emotionally
neutral. You don't need to see bone fragments on the wall to
understand that, and in fact more realistic special effects would
detract from the point.
So it is with almost any example of violence you care to mention. If
it does have a point, the point has been made in a better way with
less violence. I haven't seen Gibson's film, but I'll lay odds that
Christ is not more effectively crucified there than Robert Powell was
in Jesus of Nazareth, or Colin Blakely was in Dennis Potter's Son of
Man way back in 1969.
So I'm afraid the justification for this violence as being "realistic"
is bogus. None of us needs to see welts rising or blood flowing to
know that such things are a cause of suffering. There's no "message"
Gibson could want to communicate that requires such portrayals. I'm
afraid a bit of cynicism is in order: Mel Gibson knows what sells. He
won't convert anyone with his film, though he will do a lot of
preaching to the choir. And of course he'll make a lot of money. Not
that there's anything wrong with that. It's just not God's work,
that's all.
--
AH
nan
> nanl...@hotmail.com (nan) wrote in message news:<8f49fa86.04022...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Dear Luk,
> > Is it possible that brutal Roman crucifixion cannot be depicted other
> > than violent and painful? Considering the historical fact the some
> > cultures executed persons by stoning to death and that method causes a
> > bit of prolonged suffering too, how should it be depicted in a
> > documentary or in a fictional drama? I say if the historical truth
> > and fact of suffering by violent means is a matter of the agony of
> > spewed blood, guts and tissue, so be it. How else will we know to
> > despise the means?
> >
> > I'd rather become nauseated by the truth than feel better by a lie.
> > If we had been spared the explicit gruesome reality of the Nazi
> > concentration camps, would we be now so resolute against the horrors
> > of genocide?
> >
> > Who "disguised sadism as piety?" Whose sadism? What piety?
> >
> > Regards, from Nan
> >
> > P.S. What a better drivers' ed. program for teenagers than taking them
> > to accident sites and the morgues? Real life lessons with which to
> > caution them! If you want people to respect life more, then show them
> > the wreck and stench of death, and the unrestrained sorrow of victims'
> > survivors.
>
> of this sanctimonious howling about the violence in this movie comes
> from leftist Jews who never tire of reminding us of the holocaust.
> They go out of their way to show us the horror of what happened here,
> and in all its gory detail, photo by photo. And those who recoil in
> shock at these images are in effect told it's for their own good, so
> that it will never happen again. I swear, this monumental hypocrisy
> and duplicity wears me down, Nan. They act like everyone is a fool and
> can't put two and two together, especially these film critics whose
> unfathomable hatred for all things Christian is as transparent as
> Saran Wrap on a hunk of coal. (Cleopatra)
Dear Cleo,
It is easy to have the impression that Jews believe they have the
exclusive patent on being THE victims of genocide. During the time of
Nazi invasions and occupations, the Nazis murdered 8 million
non-Jewish citizens - innocent non-military persons. Everyone ignores
imperialistic Bolschevic/Soviet massacres of multi-thousands of
citizens as well as Soviet engineered famines.
I guess the Roman sport-loving citizens who enjoyed the massacre of
Christians in their Coliseum does not count as a "genocidal" atrocity.
Although I prefer not to associate myself with any religion, I think
it is time for the Christians to form an Anti-Defamation League for
their own sakes. I am fair sick of hearing the "Christian Right"
defamed - especially since the Christians I know are SO _far more
tolerant_, fair-minded and mentally balanced than ranting antagonistic
atheists.
My adverse reaction to atheists and anti-Christian pseudo-liberals is
almost wretching enough to convert me to "born-again" Baptism!
Don't get me on the subject of paedophiliacs who join the church for
sin-exempted access to the young. They are not Christians - they are
exploiting poseurs.
Best to you, from Nan
nan
> nan wrote:
>
> > Is it possible that brutal Roman crucifixion cannot be depicted other
> > than violent and painful?
>
> But I think it's a matter of how graphic
> one wants to be, how many details will be
> shown and for how long.
>
> > Considering the historical fact the some
> > cultures executed persons by stoning to death and that method causes a
> > bit of prolonged suffering too, how should it be depicted in a
> > documentary or in a fictional drama? I say if the historical truth
> > and fact of suffering by violent means is a matter of the agony of
> > spewed blood, guts and tissue, so be it. How else will we know to
> > despise the means?
>
> more than I want to know about pain and suffering. It's
> already hard to keep one's mind off of what people
> actually live through.
That point of realistic depictation and recount of atrocious events is
to REMIND us of what some people had to live through so that we
empathize, so that we do not remain indifferent.
>
> > I'd rather become nauseated by the truth than feel better by a lie.
> > If we had been spared the explicit gruesome reality of the Nazi
> > concentration camps, would we be now so resolute against the horrors
> > of genocide?
>
> Well of course there are many ways to tell a story. If
> the story teller wants to make sure people "get it",
> then something graphic and realistic a way to do that.
> But is the motivation behind all the realism always a
> good one? And does depicting graphic violence
> encourage violent people to act out? We know
> sometimes it does.
Violent and abusive people are not led to brutal means by anything
other than their true natures. They will be violent and show no
reverence for life because that depravity is innate to their very
being. Cold-blooded, dehumanized persons are that way because that is
what they are. No matter what their justification is, e.g., political
ideology or powerlust, they are monsters. That is reality - there are
monsterous persons out there in real life. Many wrapped themselves in
guises for "altruistic causes" too. They monguer and bait for their
selfish hateful purposes.
> > Who "disguised sadism as piety?" Whose sadism?
>
> The charge is that Gibson does when he emphasizes his
> personal religion in discussing his film. The sadism, of
> course is that of the people who crucified Christ and mocked
> him.
A "charge"? Why wouldn't Gibson emphasize his own re-affirmed
religious convictions? Upon whose convictions should he expound?
Consider the sources of criticism of the film and of Gibson himself.
Are we to expect a "separation of church" and creative cinematic
representations?
Regards, from Nan
> > What a better drivers' ed. program for teenagers than taking them
> > to accident sites and the morgues? Real life lessons with which to
> > caution them! If you want people to respect life more, then show them
> > the wreck and stench of death, and the unrestrained sorrow of victims'
> > survivors.
>
> Absolutely. Most teenagers have no concept of mortality
> or suffering.
>
> Luk
P.S. Yep - that's also true of too many adults.
~Nan
nan
> "nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8f49fa86.04022...@posting.google.com...> news:<40420983...@earthlink.net>...
> > Dear Luk,
> > Is it possible that brutal Roman crucifixion cannot be depicted other
> > cultures executed persons by stoning to death and that method causes a
> > bit of prolonged suffering too, how should it be depicted in a
> > documentary or in a fictional drama? I say if the historical truth
> > and fact of suffering by violent means is a matter of the agony of
> > spewed blood, guts and tissue, so be it. How else will we know to
> > despise the means?
>
> homosexuality was common amongst the Roman troops. He could have filmed it
> as a GAY RIGHTS flick and has 200 minutes of non stop fellatio to PLEASE the
> left wingnuts! Maybe even includes a couple Gerbil launchings to add some
> spice to it!
The above depictation you suggest would not be "politically correct."
Regards, from Nan
Andy Katz
wrote:
>Sarah wrote;
>
>>That is BS. The whole world sympathized and cried with us until Bush invaded
>>Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11.
>>
>>
>>
>>Gms
>>
>
>Thats bs Sarah. People from the Islamic countries danced in the streets.
In the aftermath of 9/11 I saw a few moments of video depicting some
people celebrating ... something. Since I don't speak Arabic, I don't
know for certain what they were celebrating. I believe it was the
attack on the Towers, but I'm bearing in mind that I have to take that
on faith.
I'm also bearing in mind that I saw only a few moments of footage.
Islam numbers, what, 1.6 or 1.7 billion people? All of them are
suddenly out in the streets, dancing, celebrating, partying up, and
all we see is a few moments of footage from one location?
>Muslims in the heavily muslim country of France danced and cheered.
Evidence?
And suppose for a moment what you assert is true. Every single Muslim
on planet celebrated 9/11 (even those who died in the Twin Towers). So
what? How is that a rationale for invading Iraq or launching a global
counter-jihad against Islam?
>Iraq, btw,
>supported terrorists from all over the world, including al quaida.To think
>pathetic countries like France liked us until we invaded Iraq is silly.
Some support may indeed have come to al Qaeda from Iraq. More came
from Saudi Arabia, yet because GWB and Co have so many interests
there, our response is put US military personnel on the line to
protect the sheiks and their harems.
>France had been violating the UN bans on trade with Iraq for years.
How dare any nation defy the UN?!?
;-)
Andy Katz
____________________________________
I sentence you to kiss my ass!
The Simpsons
a...@interport.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
Alan Hope
>They believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world but they don't want to
>hear or see any beatings, blood or suffering. If they really believe that he
>died for a reason, why aren't they screaming about what he went thru to take
>their sins upon his shoulders?
I suppose it's worthless to point out that if Jesus was the Son of
God, or a part of the Godhead if you're at all Trinitarian, then dying
and going to Hell was a breeze for him. He knew he'd be coming out the
other side, so what's the big deal?
Death is a big deal for the rest of us because we *don't* know. I see
no sacrifice in an eternal being spending three measly days in a place
where He has dominion. So he got a slap here and a cut there, and a
swollen eye in the other place. So what? He was omnipotent, eternal
and fucking omniscient, immortal invisible and God only wise. It can't
have been that much of a deal.
The trouble Christians have is this: they want Jesus to be divine, but
they also want him to to suffer like a man. Can't have it both ways,
guys. You've been struggling with this question since the days of the
Arian heretics, and you still haven't squared the circle. Maybe
<snort> someone in at-c can solve the paradox. Ranger Steve? How can
Jesus be God and yet suffer like a man? Any ideas?
--
AH
nan
But, the "truth" of the matter is ours.
from Nan
Luk
> That point of realistic depictation and recount of atrocious events is
> to REMIND us of what some people had to live through so that we
> empathize, so that we do not remain indifferent.
Do you think Gibson is simply attempting
to illustrate man's humanity to man?
If that's Gibson's real motivation, religion
doesn't necessarily have anything to do with
it.
Also, one must ask whether the violent depiction
of cruelty and suffering does, in fact, diminish
evil behavior in real life. It often excites
those who enjoy cruelty and who like to inflict
suffering.
> Violent and abusive people are not led to brutal means by anything
> other than their true natures. They will be violent and show no
> reverence for life because that depravity is innate to their very
> being.
True.
> - there are
> monsterous persons out there in real life. Many wrapped themselves in
> guises for "altruistic causes" too. They monguer and bait for their
> selfish hateful purposes.
Certainly there are many guises (and excuses) for
destructive behavior.
> Why wouldn't Gibson emphasize his own re-affirmed
> religious convictions? Upon whose convictions should he expound?
> Consider the sources of criticism of the film and of Gibson himself.
> Are we to expect a "separation of church" and creative cinematic
> representations?
No we needn't expect that. But it's fair to ask some
questions about the religious aspects of this film.
Does the artistic merit hinge on one's acceptance
of the Christian meaning of the Crucifixion? And if
it doesn't, does the film qualify as art? Is its
violence justified? Is violence art? Or is *some*
violence art? And why?
How do we judge the film? Is it a good
film? If so, why?
> Most teenagers have no concept of mortality
> > or suffering.
>
> P.S. Yep - that's also true of too many adults.
I'm more inclined to believe adults "get it" but learn
to ignore it.
Luk
nan
Alan, Mephisto Mond,
It's the difference between defining depraved character and defining
the real effects of depraved actions. The imputation of a "hit man" is
hardly explicit enough without the description of his cold-blooded
actions and their deadly results. There are good reasons to
realisticly depict the meanings of heinous and depraved behavior as
well as their realistic effects. Film is an artistic medium, but it
should be an educational one too. Of course, nothing compares to its
propaganda value.
from Nan
nan
Mephisto Mond, Alan,
What is "God's work"?
from Nan
Alan Hope
>What is "God's work"?
I haven' t the slightest idea, nan. That admission, I hope you're
noting, sets me apart from the great majority of mankind, who all seem
to think they know the answer.
However, while a well-known actor and director raking in huge amounts
of cash from the distribution of a film *may* indeed be God's work,
I'm inclined to follow William of Ockham, and take the most obvious
track. Mel has made a very successful movie, for the same reason all
movie-makers make movies. I don't recall hearing anyone suggest
Braveheart was actually a plea for Scottish independence. I fail to
see why anyone would assume The Passion is anything other than an
attempt to make a big-grossing movie, which will repay his investment
handsomely.
Do you have some reason to think he won't be banking the cash under
his own name? Has he committed the profits to some worthy cause I',
not aware of?
Didn't think so.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Film is an artistic medium, but it
>should be an educational one too. Of course, nothing compares to its
>propaganda value.
I've snipped the rest of your comments, on the basis that my life and
the life of most people here is simply too short to spend time
determining your meaning. But onward ...
You claim film should be educational. You decry its use as a
propaganda tool. Please explain the difference between "education" and
"propaganda".
I suspect we're in the territory of the conjugation of irregular
verbs:
I educate
You spin
He propagandises
etc.
You'll be hard-pushed to draw a distinction. I'll reject unread, I
should explain, any wholesale copy&pastes. I want to see *you* defend
your argument. No-one else. You.
Now get to it.
--
AH
nan
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<vqn9405nrsopilli8...@4ax.com>...
> > Luk goes:
> >
> > >Gibson did a perfect job of choosing and directing a
> > >film destined to get everyone's juices flowing.
> > >In one direction or another.
> >
> > Yes. Those people like Steve who are prostrating themselves as if he
> > were the new John the Baptist should bear in mind he'll be gleefully
> > rubbing his hands and fervently praying all the way to the bank.
>
> lunch money making Schindler's List. I don't seem to recall too many
> of your ilk making a similar observation, Alan. So, under the
> circumstances, I hope you don't mind if I suggest that you and your
> Jewish brethren have zilch credibility here.
> >
> > And they claim he's being opposed by "Hollywood". What a bunch of
> > saps. This movie is Hollywood all the way. Blood goes in one end,
> > money comes out the other. Plus ca change.
>
> intelligence a comment of this nature betrays little more than a
> profound and abiding hatred for Christianity. There can be no other
> explanation here inasmuch as only an ill-tutored dullard could fail to
> make a distinction between films depicting gratuitous violence and
> those which are based in historical events. Moreover, this film
> doesn't even claim to depict the life of Christ in its totality, but
> rather His last 12 hours here on earth wherein terrible violence was
> done to His person. So, even criticism on this level is denied you
> vicious Christ haters.
>
> (Cleopatra)
Dear Cleo,
Alan Hope aka Mephisto Mond "...doth invert the attest of eyes and ears,
As if these organs had deceptious functions." ~Shak.
Regards, from Nan
goldenm...@yahoo.com
The media leads the Hate America/Blame America
crowd. It thinks it makes them superior.
GM
nan
> nan wrote:
>
> > That point of realistic depictation and recount of atrocious events is
> > to REMIND us of what some people had to live through so that we
> > empathize, so that we do not remain indifferent.
>
> Do you think Gibson is simply attempting
> to illustrate man's humanity to man?
>
> If that's Gibson's real motivation, religion
> doesn't necessarily have anything to do with
> it.
>
obviously his religious reaffirmation. One might say Gibson's passion
to retell the story.
> Also, one must ask whether the violent depiction
> of cruelty and suffering does, in fact, diminish
> evil behavior in real life. It often excites
> those who enjoy cruelty and who like to inflict
> suffering.
I don't believe anyone let alone Gibson believes his film can diminish
evil in the world. I would think he wants a truer reaffirmation from
Christians.
>
> > Violent and abusive people are not led to brutal means by anything
> > other than their true natures. They will be violent and show no
> > reverence for life because that depravity is innate to their very
> > being.
>
> True.
>
> > - there are
> > monsterous persons out there in real life. Many wrapped themselves in
> > guises for "altruistic causes" too. They monguer and bait for their
> > selfish hateful purposes.
>
> Certainly there are many guises (and excuses) for
> destructive behavior.
>
> > Why wouldn't Gibson emphasize his own re-affirmed
> > religious convictions? Upon whose convictions should he expound?
> > Consider the sources of criticism of the film and of Gibson himself.
> > Are we to expect a "separation of church" and creative cinematic
> > representations?
>
> No we needn't expect that. But it's fair to ask some
> questions about the religious aspects of this film.
> Does the artistic merit hinge on one's acceptance
> of the Christian meaning of the Crucifixion?
You cannot ask an agnostic like me such a question about religious
aspects. Someone else posted in here expressed that Gibson's intent
was not artistic but educational. I'd agree that Gibson's intent
seems to be educational. Christ's Crucifixion is symbolicly very
profound in Christian belief. We have enough static Art, stained glass
windows, etc, artistly representing Christ and his Crucifixion.
> And if
> it doesn't, does the film qualify as art? Is its
> violence justified? Is violence art? Or is *some*
> violence art? And why?
Cripes, it's all relative, ain't it? In the eye of the beholder?
>
> How do we judge the film? Is it a good
> film? If so, why?
The film is being judged and criticized from all angles, as well as
Gibson. Take your pick.
>
> > Most teenagers have no concept of mortality
> > > or suffering.
> >
> > P.S. Yep - that's also true of too many adults.
>
> I'm more inclined to believe adults "get it" but learn
> to ignore it.
>
> Luk
I inclined to believe there are adults who never "get it" and never
could want to "get it." Just as there are people incapable of
perceiving intangibles and the true nature of spiritual convictions.
Regards, from Nan
nan
> <Or, better yet, they could have made a true *documentary*, sort of like they
> did with Reagan. They could have alleged that Jesus Christ was in fact of the
> direct lineage of the Bush family and was secretly torturing little children
> and throwing them into acid vats. Then, instead of merely crucifying him once,
> they could have taken him down from the cross like about ten times and did it
> all over again and
> again until they were dragging a skeleton. Then at the end, they could show the
> Romans, urged on by the psychotic, Hate Bush Israelites, crushing His remaining
> bones to cinders with huge boulders or
> something and pissing on the ashes shouting, "Where are the WMD's, Jesus
> Bush!!" Of course, the critics would then be telling us the film could have
> been more realistic and shown more violence, such as killing Jesus Bush FIFTY
> times instead. (Cleopatra)>
>
> Forgot to take your Thorazine again huh?
>
Haute sarcasim is not a symptom of Thorazine withdrawal. It's
theatrical -devised to make a graphic point, among others, like
"...pissing on the ashes shouting..." Cleo provides an hyperbolic
description of a *hate crime* or of the usual Bush-bashing.
Regards, from Nan
>
>
>
> Dogs & children first.
nan
zuz...@webtv.net
>From what I've heard of it, it sounds like
>a Christian horror movie
I've heard it referred to as the "Jesus Chainsaw Massacre."
Megan
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."
-Edmund Burke
Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com
Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22
"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."
- W.H. Murray
nan
As an historical aside, if no one has read about Alexander the Great:
Re: Crucifixions
"Herodotus mentions crucifixion three times in his histories, Curtius
Rufus says Alexander the Great had 2,000 survivors from the siege of
Tyre crucified on the shores of the Mediterranean, Sanhedrin 6.5 says
Simeon B Shetah had 70 or 80 witches hung in the city of Ashkelon, and
Josephus mentions it several times in his different works. He
introduces it when telling how Antiochus, around 165 BC, robbed the
temple of its treasure supplied in the previous century by the
Ptolemies. He had wanted to try to conquer Egypt but had been warned
off by the Romans, and, piqued, decided to take it out on the temple
the Egyptians had favoured. He imposed stringent conditions on the
Jewish population and many refused to obey them. His punishment was
crucifixion."
Source: www.askwhy.co.uk
Regards, from Nan
nan
It seems the media cannot repeat/quote often enough some one calling
Bush a "liar" and a phrase to demean Americans. It's the
Democrat/leftist mantra.
Their (the usual media pundits)sophistic egoism deludes them with a
sense of their exclusivity. It really rankles me that THEY have the
nerve to censor the news and clip the truth for us. Deceitful
bastards owned by deceitful bastards.
I prefer to look out of all the windows for a truer weather report -
metaphorically speaking.
Regards, from Nan
nan
nan
> nan goes:
>
> >Film is an artistic medium, but it
> >should be an educational one too. Of course, nothing compares to its
> >propaganda value.
>
> I've snipped the rest of your comments, on the basis that my life and
> the life of most people here is simply too short to spend time
> determining your meaning. But onward ...
Mephisto Mond, you wrote:
> That point aside, the thing that bothers me about screen violence is
> that film-makers don't seem to realise that it's not actually a very
> good way to get your point across, even when your point concerns
> murder and mayhem. Martin Scorsese went to great lengths in GoodFellas
> and in Casino to dwell on the lingering beauty of extreme violence
> committed by mobsters, for all the world as if he had never seen White
> Heat or Public Enemy, in which the same point is made to more telling
> effect, with not a drop of blood to be seen. Cagney's character in
> Public Enemy is, in one respect, like Amon Goeth: his murderous
> violence is arbitrary, indifferent, disinterested, and emotionally
> neutral. You don't need to see bone fragments on the wall to
> understand that, and in fact more realistic special effects would
> detract from the point.
Essentially, I wrote in answer to you above paragraph (the reply which
you snipped)
"Alan, Mephisto Mond,
It's the difference between defining depraved character and defining
the real effects of depraved actions. The imputation of a "hit man" is
hardly explicit enough without the description of his cold-blooded
actions and their deadly results. There are good reasons to
realisticly depict the meanings of heinous and depraved behavior as
well as their realistic effects. Film is an artistic medium, but it
should be an educational one too. Of course, nothing compares to its
propaganda value."
I should add, at its best, a film can be enlightening too. I do
wonder if that is not the purpose of Gibson.
>
> So I'm afraid the justification for this violence as being "realistic"
> is bogus. None of us needs to see welts rising or blood flowing to
> know that such things are a cause of suffering.
"None of us"? On whose authority?
> There's no "message"
Hardly a message for you.
> Gibson could want to communicate that requires such portrayals. I'm
> afraid a bit of cynicism is in order: Mel Gibson knows what sells. He
> won't convert anyone with his film, though he will do a lot of
> preaching to the choir. And of course he'll make a lot of money. Not
> that there's anything wrong with that. It's just not God's work,
> that's all.
What is "God's work"? That is, what is "God's work" according to the
*gospel" of Alan Hope/Mephisto Mond?
> You claim film should be educational. You decry its use as a
> propaganda tool. Please explain the difference between "education" and
> "propaganda".
I did NOT "decry" the use of film as a propaganda tool. I made a
matter of fact statement: "Of course, nothing compares to its [a
film's]
propaganda value." (As compared to educational and/or artistic
values.)
It's fitting that you don't make a distinction between "education" and
"propaganda" and require definitions.
> I suspect we're in the territory of the conjugation of irregular
> verbs:
>
> I educate
> You spin
> He propagandises
>
> etc.
It's all relative then, isn't it?
> You'll be hard-pushed to draw a distinction. I'll reject unread, I
> should explain, any wholesale copy&pastes. I want to see *you* defend
> your argument. No-one else. You.
>
> Now get to it.
What argument? You've made up a non-existing issue to argue. I've
merely stated my opinion in response to your blather. What argument do
you demand I defend? The propaganda value of cinema? Alan, you are
an ass. Typical of your digression ploys to detract from the topic
which is Gibson's film.
Define "God's work" in your terms referring to Gibson's film/motives:
"It's just not God's work, that's all." Then, I might bother to argue
with you.
from Nan
Aussie Lurker
>
> I suppose it's worthless to point out that if Jesus was the Son of
> God, or a part of the Godhead if you're at all Trinitarian, then dying
> and going to Hell was a breeze for him. He knew he'd be coming out the
> other side, so what's the big deal?
Well the "big deal" is that he was divine but also human. He was "born of
man". Therefore he suffered pain, doubts, torments, and all other human
emotions.
>
> Death is a big deal for the rest of us because we *don't* >know.
Ahhh that's where you are wrong. Those who believe and are Christian and
have faith, really believe and KNOW that (to use your words) they will "be
coming out the other side".
Aussie Lurker
d~
>I've heard it referred to as the "Jesus Chainsaw Massacre."
or "the gospel according to the Marquis de Sade"
d~
nan
> nan goes:
>
> >What is "God's work"?
>
> I haven' t the slightest idea, nan. That admission, I hope you're
> noting, sets me apart from the great majority of mankind, who all seem
> to think they know the answer.
IF you haven't the slightest idea of what is "God's work", then why do
you presume to state that Gibson's film is not "God's work"? As an
agnostic and a naturalist, my convictions are formed by contemplating
Nature's works and how it works - natural laws. You offered the
paradox of how can we have on one hand a Mortal Jesus and on the other
hand Jesus, the Omnipotent God. Mind you, I am not religious, but my
understanding is that Jesus was the Son of God, not God Himself. But,
please, I don't like talking about God and religious interpretations.
Such discussions bring out the antagonist atheists.
>> > However, while a well-known actor and director raking in huge
amounts
> of cash from the distribution of a film *may* indeed be God's work,
> I'm inclined to follow William of Ockham, and take the most obvious
> track. Mel has made a very successful movie, for the same reason all
> movie-makers make movies. I don't recall hearing anyone suggest
> Braveheart was actually a plea for Scottish independence.
Hardly anyone would believe it was such a plea.
> I fail to
> see why anyone would assume The Passion is anything other than an
> attempt to make a big-grossing movie, which will repay his investment
> handsomely.
By Gibson's own words - his re-affirmation of faith, and in a great
part, based the Christ Crucifixion.
> Do you have some reason to think he won't be banking the cash under
> his own name? Has he committed the profits to some worthy cause I',
> not aware of?
>
> Didn't think so.
Gibson's profits are not relevant - he is not dedicated to poverty and
celibacy - he is not St. Francis. The subject and dramatic treatment
of his film are relevant, and that is the main topic. To dismiss the
film and Gibson's own religious passion on mercenary grounds as well
as the film's subsequent financial success is petty to say the least.
Before the film got into theatres it was defamed and controversial way
beyond typical negative film reviews. Under the weight of adverse
criticism and accusations of anti-semitism, and a negative(?)review
from the Pope, it could have flopped big time. Christ, Christians and
Crucifixions are not favoured subjects for popular entertainment.
SOoo, Mephisto Mond, what do you mean by "God's works" and how does
that NOT apply to Gibson's film and his efforts?
from Nan
Luk
> IF you haven't the slightest idea of what is "God's work", then why do
> you presume to state that Gibson's film is not "God's work"? As an
> agnostic and a naturalist, my convictions are formed by contemplating
> Nature's works and how it works - natural laws. You offered the
> paradox of how can we have on one hand a Mortal Jesus and on the other
> hand Jesus, the Omnipotent God. Mind you, I am not religious, but my
> understanding is that Jesus was the Son of God, not God Himself. But,
> please, I don't like talking about God and religious interpretations.
> Such discussions bring out the antagonist atheists.
"God's work" is a massive subject if the phrase is
taken seriously. But I'm trying not to get into a
discussion of the Christian religion which I don't
have the stamina to debate here.
> Gibson's profits are not relevant -
That's entirely true. And many highly regarded works
of art were created by artists who were just trying to make
ends meet.
The work itself needs to be assessed to determine
its worth. And that's where I'm coming from
with regard to The Passion. (Of course I haven't
seen the movie, so I'm a bit handicapped there. (~:
But I'm interested in finding out what makes the
film good. Which will be hard if the gore in
the film keeps me out of the theater.
It seems to me that people who like the film
talk about the religious implications and references
in it rather than about other qualities which would
normally be evaluated. Ergo my question. Does
one's appreciation of The Passion depend on
one's religious beliefs? Without its religious
affirmation, is it a good film? A great film? Just
an exercise in gore? Or what?
Luk
Nancy Rudins
>
> I watched some _BRAVEHEART_ today and I think that it's safe to say
> that violence is Mel's forte.
>
I do think you're right there.
> And based on the overall feedback from critics concerning the violence
> in THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, I'm more inclined to believe that Mel,
> much like William Friedkin (THE EXORCIST), is attempting to SHOCK his
> audience into religious conformation, by projecting guilt upon his
> audience.
And I think you're correct on that one. It didn't really matter
if Christ was crucified or if he'd died of an arrow shot through
him. The purpose would have been accomplished.
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
Take a sad song and make it better (lennon/mccartney)
Nancy Rudins
nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins
Ranger00089
>And I think you're correct on that one. It didn't really matter
>if Christ was crucified or if he'd died of an arrow shot through
>him. The purpose would have been accomplished.
>
>Kind regards,
>Nancy
It is obvious you do not know what your talking about Nancy. The Pasion, refers
to the suffering Jesus had to go through in order to save mankind. It certainly
mattered how he died. An arrow would have been quick and clean, he had to die
in a manner that was prolonged and painful. Prolonged so that he had all
possible time to change his mind and bring down the angels to save him, and
painful so that his decision would be all the more difficult for him. Why
people would make statements such as your baffles me. You must not have read
the bible or seen the movie, yet you are quick to comment on Jesus and his
death.It must be wonderful being you, knowing nothing but being so fast to
comment on everything.
Steve, SFC/US Army
Ranger00089
>Ergo my question. Does
>one's appreciation of The Passion depend on
>one's religious beliefs? Without its religious
>affirmation, is it a good film? A great film? Just
>an exercise in gore? Or what?
>
>Luk
The question lacks merit Luk. Does a movie about a profound event look or feel
the same without the event? This movie is based on the most basic Christian
belief, and to ask what it would be like without considering that event is
silly.
How good would Titanic have been without the sinking of a boat? You cannot
take the most important aspect of a movie away mentally and ask how good it
would have been. It would not have been at all. It would not have been made
without religion. And questioning the value of a movie you have never seen nor
have the desire to see only looks like a weak attempt to either bash the film,
the producer or the subject. The Passion is what it is, and it is not simply
the name of a movie Luk.
Steve, SFC/US Army
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<l8ba40hn1e25fsg1o...@4ax.com>...
>> nan goes:
>> >What is "God's work"?
>> I haven' t the slightest idea, nan. That admission, I hope you're
>> noting, sets me apart from the great majority of mankind, who all seem
>> to think they know the answer.
>IF you haven't the slightest idea of what is "God's work", then why do
>you presume to state that Gibson's film is not "God's work"?
I have a fair idea of what God's work is *not*. I'm fairly certain it
doesn't involve selling as many cinema tickets as one can, by whatever
means necessary.
Eye of the needle, nan -- the one saying Americans all would prefer
Jesus had never uttered.
>As an
>agnostic and a naturalist,
What, you mean like Sir Peter Scott?
>my convictions are formed by contemplating
>Nature's works and how it works - natural laws. You offered the
>paradox of how can we have on one hand a Mortal Jesus and on the other
>hand Jesus, the Omnipotent God. Mind you, I am not religious, but my
>understanding is that Jesus was the Son of God, not God Himself. But,
>please, I don't like talking about God and religious interpretations.
>Such discussions bring out the antagonist atheists.
The attempt to reconcile the divinity and the humanity of Jesus has as
long a history as Christianity itself, and no-one has been able to do
so satisfactorily to date, despite the efforts of the best minds in
religious history. But it's rather a crucial point in the question of
whether he suffered on the cross.
>>> > However, while a well-known actor and director raking in huge
>amounts
>> of cash from the distribution of a film *may* indeed be God's work,
>> I'm inclined to follow William of Ockham, and take the most obvious
>> track. Mel has made a very successful movie, for the same reason all
>> movie-makers make movies. I don't recall hearing anyone suggest
>> Braveheart was actually a plea for Scottish independence.
>Hardly anyone would believe it was such a plea.
Yet Wallace is an emblematic figure to Scottish nationalists. When Mr.
Gibson, agonising, cried out "Freedom!" what do you suppose it was
intended to mean?
>> I fail to
>> see why anyone would assume The Passion is anything other than an
>> attempt to make a big-grossing movie, which will repay his investment
>> handsomely.
>By Gibson's own words - his re-affirmation of faith, and in a great
>part, based the Christ Crucifixion.
Uh-oh, syntax on the fritz again. I take it you're saying he made the
film to affirm his faith, to which I'd echo Mandy Rice-Davis. He would
say that, wouldn't he? Meanwhile, the cash-registers go Ker-ching!
>> Do you have some reason to think he won't be banking the cash under
>> his own name? Has he committed the profits to some worthy cause I',
>> not aware of?
>> Didn't think so.
>Gibson's profits are not relevant - he is not dedicated to poverty and
>celibacy - he is not St. Francis. The subject and dramatic treatment
>of his film are relevant, and that is the main topic. To dismiss the
>film and Gibson's own religious passion on mercenary grounds as well
>as the film's subsequent financial success is petty to say the least.
Yet people make films to amass money. Every other film ever released
had that as its aim, so why assume this one is any different?
>Before the film got into theatres it was defamed and controversial way
>beyond typical negative film reviews. Under the weight of adverse
>criticism and accusations of anti-semitism, and a negative(?)review
>from the Pope, it could have flopped big time.
Yeah, right. Because before people check out what Roger Ebert thinks,
they first check in with the Holy See. "You know, honey, the
Osservatore is giving it two urbis and an orbi. Sounds good to me."
Nan, the Pope can't even get his flock to have sex rubberless as God
intended. What chance does he have of controlling their entertainment
habits? And what weight does the Pope's view have in Peoria?
>Christ, Christians and
>Crucifixions are not favoured subjects for popular entertainment.
I wonder why that is.
>SOoo, Mephisto Mond, what do you mean by "God's works" and how does
>that NOT apply to Gibson's film and his efforts?
Remind me, who was it Jesus threw out of the Temple again?
Eye of the needle, nan. Eye of the needle.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Luk asked;
>>Ergo my question. Does
>>one's appreciation of The Passion depend on
>>one's religious beliefs? Without its religious
>>affirmation, is it a good film? A great film? Just
>>an exercise in gore? Or what?
>>Luk
>The question lacks merit Luk.
It doesn't lack merit at all. She's asking how the film stands up as a
film. Leave aside all the special pleading from those who are already
sold on the "message" and are merely delighted that for once their own
hobby-horse is taking part in a race. Pretend for a moment I'm not a
Christain, and so I'm unlikely to wet my pants the way you did over
the fact that some nasty men were being perfectly beastly to the Son
of God: what can you say to persuade me to see this movie?
Because if it's to have any meaning over and above the harvest of
cash, it's people like me who have to be dragged into the cinemas,
Steve. There's no point in evangelising to the members of the singing
fraternity.
>Does a movie about a profound event look or feel
>the same without the event? This movie is based on the most basic Christian
>belief, and to ask what it would be like without considering that event is
>silly.
The most basic Christian belief, surely, is not that Christ died, but
that he came back from the dead? Are you sure you're a Christian?
> How good would Titanic have been without the sinking of a boat? You cannot
>take the most important aspect of a movie away mentally and ask how good it
>would have been. It would not have been at all. It would not have been made
>without religion. And questioning the value of a movie you have never seen nor
>have the desire to see only looks like a weak attempt to either bash the film,
>the producer or the subject. The Passion is what it is, and it is not simply
>the name of a movie Luk.
So, no qualities you were able to determine. Check. Note to self:
Steve is part of the hype; give this one a miss.
--
AH
not_over_the_hill
>k...@verizon.net goes:
>
>>If you listen carefully to Gibson, I don't think he did the film to be
>>"entertainment."
>
>I think the word you're looking for is "stupidly".
>
>If he wanted to get a message across, he could have put it out on PBS
>and pocketed nothing. Opening in all those cinemas at once couldn't
>possibly have anything to do with making pots and pots of dough, could
>it?
>
>Surely not.
But.... Gibson was smart enough to know what would happen.
He knew that the jews would make his film a success not only
financially, but also the number of people who would see it.
How many people do you think would have seen his film on PBS?
Now.... that he has accomplished his objective and made a lot
people look like idiots, he has millions more to put into future
similar projects.
I bet his detractors are really worried now :)
Alan Hope
>Define "God's work" in your terms referring to Gibson's film/motives:
>"It's just not God's work, that's all." Then, I might bother to argue
>with you.
Nan, the sole criterion you apply when deciding whether or not to
argue with me is that I have posted something. Why, you often become
so enraged that you post two or three identical copies of the same
post.
You're the little fish on the hook at the end of my line. You will
argue with me when I summon you, just as you always do. Please don't
try to pretend you have any volition in this matter.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
>news:3v1a40ds17es77b3r...@4ax.com...
>> I suppose it's worthless to point out that if Jesus was the Son of
>> God, or a part of the Godhead if you're at all Trinitarian, then dying
>> and going to Hell was a breeze for him. He knew he'd be coming out the
>> other side, so what's the big deal?
>Well the "big deal" is that he was divine but also human. He was "born of
>man". Therefore he suffered pain, doubts, torments, and all other human
>emotions.
Except he wasn't born of man, was he? Mel Gibson, as a fundamentalist
Catholic, certainly believes He was fathered by the Holy Ghost. Given
that His dad wasn't a man, one has to wonder what you think "born of
man" might mean.
>> Death is a big deal for the rest of us because we *don't* >know.
>Ahhh that's where you are wrong. Those who believe and are Christian and
>have faith, really believe and KNOW that (to use your words) they will "be
>coming out the other side".
I was using the word "know" in its conventional sense, meaning
something other than "believe really hard, and hope like fuck it's
true". By your criteria, some people "know" that Tinkerbell really
does exist. Will you go along with that?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<vqn9405nrsopilli8...@4ax.com>...
>> Luk goes:
>> >Gibson did a perfect job of choosing and directing a
>> >film destined to get everyone's juices flowing.
>> >In one direction or another.
>> Yes. Those people like Steve who are prostrating themselves as if he
>> were the new John the Baptist should bear in mind he'll be gleefully
>> rubbing his hands and fervently praying all the way to the bank.
>No less so than Steven Spielberg after he raked in tens of millions in
>lunch money making Schindler's List. I don't seem to recall too many
>of your ilk making a similar observation, Alan.
Spielberg ploughed the money from SL into the Shoah project, instead
of his trouser-pocket. The Shoah Project is of widespread lasting
social and academic interest, and free to users. I rest my case.
>So, under the
>circumstances, I hope you don't mind if I suggest that you and your
>Jewish brethren have zilch credibility here.
Gawd, scratch a Christian zealot and there's an anti-Semite lurking
just beneath the surface. Invariably.
>> And they claim he's being opposed by "Hollywood". What a bunch of
>> saps. This movie is Hollywood all the way. Blood goes in one end,
>> money comes out the other. Plus ca change.
>Alan, I gauge people quite well, and given your demonstrated
>intelligence a comment of this nature betrays little more than a
>profound and abiding hatred for Christianity.
You'd need to demonstrate that Christianity was part of the discussion
in the first place. I'm talking about a Hollywood star making a
Hollywood movie. For some reason you want to imbue the project with
some sort of mystical significance. Your assertion of my hatred of
Christianity is symptomatic: despite being in the very thick of the
establishment, right up to and including the Oval Office, American
Christians maintain this ridiculous charade of being a beleaguered
minority. Why is that?
>There can be no other
>explanation here inasmuch as only an ill-tutored dullard could fail to
>make a distinction between films depicting gratuitous violence and
>those which are based in historical events.
The portrayal of violence may be gratuitous regardless of its
historical authenticity. As Luk has repeatedly and penetratingly
asked: what does it bring to the story? All right, it's probably
authentic. So what? The Mob violence in GoodFellas was probably, if
anything, downplayed. So when is violence gratuitous? That's the
kernel of Luk's question, and I've yet to see an answer.
>Moreover, this film
>doesn't even claim to depict the life of Christ in its totality, but
>rather His last 12 hours here on earth wherein terrible violence was
>done to His person. So, even criticism on this level is denied you
>vicious Christ haters.
How so? Criticism is permitted to the extent I choose to introduce it.
You can answer it or disregard it, but you certainly can't deny it.
So you're choosing to disregard. Noted. No meaningful response. Also
noted.
--
AH
web2...@verizon.net
> >If you listen carefully to Gibson, I don't think he did the film to be
"entertainment."
> I think the word you're looking for is "stupidly".
That was unnecessary but not unexpected coming from you Alan.
> If he wanted to get a message across, he could have put it out on PBS
> and pocketed nothing. Opening in all those cinemas at once couldn't
> possibly have anything to do with making pots and pots of dough, could
> it? Surely not.
He spent $25 million of his own money on it. For all your claims about
Spielberg and SL, Spielberg recovered his own costs. I am amazed at your
claims to know the exact distribution not only of what Spielberg did with
"every cent" from SL but how "every cent" from Passion will be spent. You
are a truly amazing PROPHET of God, Alan! SL opened in gobs of theaters as
well Alan.
I am very comfortable with Passion being in the same category as
Schindler's list and Saving Private Ryan. All three films had important
moral lessons for the world. All reminded their audiences of important
issues for life, great life lessons. Some of us GOT IT and, sadly, others
just didn't!
Lots of people referred to Spielberg as "that damn Jew." Not the
message of the film, the great moral message. Others miss the message of
Gibson's film.
It's funny (sad) that all of your arguments against Gibson were those used
against Spielberg and some people still believe.
web2...@verizon.net
"Sarah Monroe" <gmsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040302144031...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> >
> >Some French cried when the Nazi's marched into Paris. But the MAJORITY
fully
> >supported the Nazis and actively collaborated with them,
> >the underground were mostly the French COMMUNISTS. France (and most of
> >Europe) was basically pretty much the same with factions and the two
> >significant ones being the Nazi sympathizers and the Communists. The
French
> >were far from unique. The interesting part is that BOTH the French Nazis
AND
> >the French Communists could agree on only ONE thing. To HATE Americans!
> Pangborn's version of French history. Have you ever been there?
Yes and to Germany and Switzerland as well. I have been to Cuba too. Canada
and Mexico.Your point is what? Are you saying there as NO Vichy? Are you
SERIOUSLY, Sarah, saying there were NO "collaborators" with the Nazi
regime?Are you SERIOUSLY saying that the French rose up and repelled the
Nazi army? They bravely fought them off with pitchforks and brooms? Are you
THAT big an ass Sarah? You are just a mindless contrarian. The French have
always been arrogant asses, and NO Americans are not all JETHRO BODINES in
comparison to the SAVE demeanor of even the most Rural Frenchman!
You loons try the patience of the saints.
Ranger00089
>It doesn't lack merit at all. She's asking how the film stands up as a
>film
Keep reading little one. BTW Alan, is this another of your 100% claims that I
jump in on you? You are my bitch, keep jumping and dancing for me.
>The most basic Christian belief, surely, is not that Christ died, but
>that he came back from the dead? Are you sure you're a Christian?
>
Are you certain you are of any significance at all? Nope, you aren't.
Danc bitch, dance for your daddy.
Bwahahahahahahahaha
Steve, SFC/US Army